At 5:58 AM +1000 6/23/02, Michael Edwards wrote: > So allowing more sharps or flats is reasonable up to a point, >in view of this. But why up to as many as 127 sharps or flats? Is >there a reason for this? - it does seem a bit over the top, in >generosity of going beyond the standard limits. Or might it perhaps >have just made the programming easier (127 being 1 less than a power >of 2), and at least do no harm?
I think you've got it right: 127 is 2 to the 7th - 1. They <probably> just used a data type of signed short for the value. Pure speculation: Negative values are number of flats and positive values are number of sharps (or vice-versa). Nothing is hurt by the large number available and they don't have to put in a lot of extra range-checking code. Best wishes, -=-Dennis -- _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
